- From: Patel-Schneider, Peter <Peter.Patel-Schneider@nuance.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 21:09:14 +0000
- To: "public-owl-comments@w3.org" <public-owl-comments@w3.org>
- CC: Boris Motik <boris.motik@cs.ox.ac.uk>
The OWL Structural Specification and Function-Style Syntax states for most syntactic constructs with an arbitrary number of arguments that these arguments are considered to be a set under structural similarity. This causes no problems for many of these syntactic constructs but there are a few where removing duplicates changes the meaning of the construct. For example, according to the wording in section 9.1.3 of SS&FS DisjointClasses( ex:foo ex:foo ex:bar ) implies that ex:foo is empty, which is very different from DisjointClasses( ex:foo ex:bar ) It would not be easy to simply change these constructs to take multisets because the OWL API would have to be changed. I propose the following fix: 1/ The functional-style syntax requires that the arguments to DisjointClasses, DisjointObjectProperties, DisjointDataProperties, and DifferentIndividuals and all but the first argument to DisjointUnion all be structurally different. 2/ When converting the triple x owl:disjointWith y where x and y are structurally similar the axiom SubClassOf( CE(x) owl:Nothing ) is produced. This is not an ideal fix by any means, but a better fix would require much more significant changes in deployed software. Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 21:09:42 UTC